@DRoZ - I am assuming by "fruitless" you mean no one visited your target? Would you care to share who that target was or would you feel better not revealing that info?

While it was unfortunate to lose jak things are at least becoming a bit clearer and "the list" is becoming narrower (4 out of 10 are anti-town among Saf, Jonty, Violet, Soundman, Aage, Jgordon, Nag, Droz, Strike, and Vodean). Jak seemed to trust that Violet was town and while I'm not so trusting as to declare her cleared, she definitely handled early game pressure well and I'd say she is one of the less likely suspects. The same can be said for DRoZ who was similarly pressure and provided a strong watcher claim. I think Aage is a reasonable choice as he was rather late to joining both lynches in addition to the reasons that strike laid out. Since we shouldn't wait around for chap as per the mod's suggestion, I think focusing on the hard evidence we have (i.e. the result of the chap's last investigation) is a wise decision. But as JG said, I'm waiting for a response from Aage.

@DRoZ - I am assuming by "fruitless" you mean no one visited your target? Would you care to share who that target was or would you feel better not revealing that info?

While it was unfortunate to lose jak things are at least becoming a bit clearer and "the list" is becoming narrower (4 out of 10 are anti-town among Saf, Jonty, Violet, Soundman, Aage, Jgordon, Nag, Droz, Strike, and Vodean). Jak seemed to trust that Violet was town and while I'm not so trusting as to declare her cleared, she definitely handled early game pressure well and I'd say she is one of the less likely suspects. The same can be said for DRoZ who was similarly pressure and provided a strong watcher claim. I think Aage is a reasonable choice as he was rather late to joining both lynches in addition to the reasons that strike laid out. Since we shouldn't wait around for chap as per the mod's suggestion, I think focusing on the hard evidence we have (i.e. the result of the chap's last investigation) is a wise decision. But as JG said, I'm waiting for a response from Aage.

DRoZ wrote:No one visited my target, but I would not feel comfortable naming who I watched.

At this point dont say who you watched.

why? because he might get counter-claimed?

LOL you really have missed alot of this game havent you? DroZ is actually one of the few players who is pretty much cleared. No my point on him not saying who he watched was it might come in handy later. Please keep up Vodean. I have been told by the MOD to play nice,but these kind of posts from you keep on making you look very strange. Do you have a jester roll and are trying to hint at it?

DRoZ wrote:No one visited my target, but I would not feel comfortable naming who I watched.

At this point dont say who you watched.

why? because he might get counter-claimed?

I can think of a couple other reasons, can't you? Maybe the watcher wants to target the same person again but doesn't want scum to know who. Maybe because it does no good for the town to know unless we have reason to doubt DRoZ's claim and at this point we do not. In your words:

vodean on day 3 wrote:DRoZ ~ Pretty much confirmed Watcher

Pressing for information that only benefits the mafia is quite curious to me as is reversing your opinion of the strength of DRoZ's claim. I'm going to Vote Vodean because in the worst case he turns out to be third party, while in the best case we take out one of the anti-town players on the list.

strike wolf wrote:Slight FOS Aage just because he didn't fact check the no lynch rule when allowing people to vote no lynch is the norm in games. Not really worth putting weight behind but just seems like that should be the first reaction to check if hte vote was just missed or if it was a rule, not to assume that it was a rule because it wasn't counted.

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Slight FOS Aage just because he didn't fact check the no lynch rule when allowing people to vote no lynch is the norm in games. Not really worth putting weight behind but just seems like that should be the first reaction to check if hte vote was just missed or if it was a rule, not to assume that it was a rule because it wasn't counted.

I did check the rules before posting, I guess I simply missed it. Neither did I know Edoc was using a program to count our votes, which would explain why he missed the vote that was two posts or so above his count. I had noticed that Hensow's no-lynch vote wasn't counted, I figured it needed to be mentioned. I guess that was my mistake.

Post and reaction test. The case at this point would be what we would call weak sauce. Just kind of an odd reaction, to assume that no lynch votes are not counted because you don't see a rule stating that they are when in fact voting no lynch is fairly standard.

I missed the rule because I was paying more attention to the fact that the no lynch-vote wasn't being counted. Is it bad of me to remark this?

strike wolf wrote:

jak111 wrote:

aage wrote:If you don't block votes, explain how you knew about Victor missing his vote two pages before Victor confirmed that?

You.. are sooo far behind bud.. It's been confirmed that I stole his vote.

Jak really proves all I need to say on this one.

I tend to sometimes make mistakes by mixing things up because I don't write notes in a word file. This has happened before, and you probably know it. That's not what happened here though, I phrased poorly and Jak misinterpreted what I said.

aage wrote:ChapCrap, why would his role not be confirmed? I thought Edocsil posted a vote count with "victor - ???" in it right after Iliad cast his supposed second vote. In the off chance someone else set it up, we can still deduce that there is a double voter and a vote stealer. Since Iliad claims to have lost his anonymous vote, there is no way he can prove that he cannot cast it.

aage wrote:

/ wrote:Why do you assume it was the secret vote stolen, strike? I don't believe that was ever confirmed.

Maybe because that's what Iliad said happened?

Admittedly I was mistaken on this one as well but it was never shown by Iliad that it was his anonymous vote that was missing.

Everyone had been assuming that, afaik, which I assumed happened because of something Iliad might have said. Since nobody corrected me on the first post and Iliad wasn't there to correct me, obviously I didn't realise that I was wrong.

strike wolf wrote:

aage wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

aage wrote:

chapcrap wrote:

aage wrote:Personally I believe that Jak was the one casting the vote, therefore we should assume Jak's alignment is what matters.

Secondly, Jak, you struck VioIet off the list immediately. Why?

No, jak's alignment doesn't really matter. What matters is whether both votes count for him or one counts for VS. Either way, jak's alignment doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not we need to include VS in the list. My inclination is no because he isn't the one who voted.

Yeah, that is what I said. And because of that we shouldn't care about VS's alignment, but Jak's. If he is scum that would mean he casted 2 of those 4 votes... or at least, that's what I assumed. You never said whether 4 votes or 4 players on the last lynch were anti-town.

Yes I did. I specifically addressed that. Skimmer.

Sorry, I largely ignored the part that wasn't addressed to me. You're right, and I agree. Still, weird response from edoc. Did you ask a question?

The bolded was addressed as Chap said. Admitted skimming in the next post.

So we have a pattern of misconstrued or inaccurate information.

Yes, true. Now let's see why you're bringing this up as evidence.

strike wolf wrote:Next on the list, bandwagon jump:

aage wrote:unvote vote greg

Shameless bandwagon jump...well maybe he has reason for it, posted in a different post...

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:YaY! Annoying orange text.

I hope Saf will reply in yellow.

umm not there...

Well, obviously you're not going to find the argument in the post on the page before the vote. The reason I voted can be found in the post directly above it from Sam, who asked that everyone please put their votes on their suspects. Greg was my only current suspect, hence I voted him. After his claim I didn't unvote because his role's name was scum. Not much to explain, not much to ask questions about either if I'm honest here.

strike wolf wrote:

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:This post to me suggests that he is not an angel.

I personally doubt there are many of those, actually. Seven arch angels tops, anyway, and the RCC only recognizes three of those by name. 'Fortunately', however, two of them already died who were not part of those three, so I think we can safely assume seven. Then, as far as I know, all claimed power roles so far are humans (and sometimes dead ones, in which case they are saints). Saying someone isn't an angel isn't as good an argument as you seem to think it is. Hence why I said that figuring the mechanics out is important, and I've been spending most of my time doing that. Obviously all the non-claimed players haven't said anything about their role, but I assume they want us to believe they're angels because those are definitely town and that would keep one out of the lynching spotlight for a little longer. Make no mistakes, though. There are only five more angels in this game if I'm not mistaken.

Kind of out of context. As the full post was designed to prove, It's not so much about you not being an angel. It was more about you not being a human or an angel.

Your first point was that I was not an angel. I agreed. Nothing seems out of context to me. Maybe you disapprove of the structure of my defence... well, then, too bad. Your next point will be about whether you think I'm human. That would be the place to look for a rebuttal, as that would be the correct context.

strike wolf wrote:

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:This post seems to confirm that he is not an angel and that he isn't a saint (his posts about Saints suggest he is unsure about what they qualify as in the game. If he was one than he should not have such questions and it most definitely suggests that he's not an angel as he should know whether angels got the saint title or not if he was).

First off, in a large game as this I should never let my own role flavor influence my judgment of others. Secondly, obviously I'm not going to share what I think about my own role when I think Jak made a poor move claiming. It simply isn't correct according to most webinfo I found that one could be a human, a saint and an angel at the same time, which I even quoted in that same quote you're responding to now: the bit where everyone except (arch)angels are called Saints. That is EOC though, so possibly irrelevant in this game. There are mentions of several "categories" of angels in the RCC article, but seeing there are already so many claimed humans leads me to believe those categories aren't in this game. Yes, I also am not part of any of these categories. I'll gladly admit that I would have never said that on day 1 because I know a lot more about the game now than I did back then. Back then, anything would've been possible and town could've been almost entirely made up of angels (although there'd be the problem of the lack of unknown angelic names), so claiming human would be an anomaly as we saw with Iliad. Right now, I'm pretty sure there aren't a lot of angels, and I'm also pretty sure that it's a bad idea to claim that you are angel since scum has only been eliminating arch angels so far. It seems they don't like them.

The bolded is a BIG conclusion jump. There was one non-lynch death at this point in the game. There's still only one death due to mafia (directly). I would agree that mafia would mostly target arch angels but Aage isn't suggesting that they would here, he's suggesting that they have. Do you know something we don't Aage? How do you know that mafia knew that LSU was an archangel. Couldn't it have been possible that they simply lynched him based on him voting Vodean? For scum to either be framing Vodean or vodean acting as scum to eliminate someone who was suspicious of him? Or even that LSU was targeted because he was an experienced player? Unless you have inside knowledge on the mafia which I believe you do. You shouldn't know this.

the war or the Angels and DemonsThe Angels flew by above and the Demons plotted below. Here he and his Demons were at their strongest, just as Yahweh and his Angels were their most powerful at the day.Angels tripped over Demons, Demons stabbed at Angels

Also, two arch angels are dead; one was nightkilled and there were 4 non-town on the lynch of the other. Thinking scum is behind this isn't really a big leap. I already explained earlier why Lsu was pretty obviously not a human, and it wouldn't have been hard for the mafia to have figured out he was not a demon either.

strike wolf wrote:I can actually somewhat accept your point about not giving up your exact role specifically (I have to admit that I have to one extent or another behaved similarly in that regard).

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Finally:

aage wrote:@Blake It appears that violet has made a reference to her win condition (probably here) which swayed Jak... although it seems kind of obvious that town will win if all demons are eliminated.

The last part in particular. He assumes but isn't sure? I am not sure about the rest of you but I see fairly clear evidence that Aage is not an angel, he certainly appears not to be town aligned human (I am still unsure to the exact break down on how humans are in this game) so if you aren't an angel and you aren't town aligned. Then you must be scum.

Why would you say I'm not aligned with town? Because I doubt Violet's clearance?Actually she got the win condition right in that post of hers. I'm simply saying it doesn't prove anything. Any scum can guess town win condition. "Kill all the non town people to win." "Demons probably aren't town." How hard was that? Hence my disbelief, and hence this remark.

I hope this suffices as explanation. Anything else?

It was the uncertainty and it definitely does appear that you aren't really completely aware in this post:

aage wrote:I think it should be mentioned that we shouldn't disregard the possibility that humans and angels have different win conditions, since if the subvert-thing is in the angel role pm but not in the human role pm. It's not in my role pm anyway, I found out about it through Lsu's and jgordon's posts, so I suppose it is also not in Jak's (or violet's, or other claimed humans') role pms.

All of that is not relevant if Jak is lying about his night actions, though. jgordon, you'll have to tell us at least what you found out last night, or you should claim a role/name because at the moment we have only your word for it. Jak is correct to say that you should claim what you know and(/or) what you are before anyone can judge.

While you claim fairly accurately to have the human WC, you show a lot of uncertainty about the specifics.

It would be pretty stupid of me to spread out my full role without reason. Secondly, D1:

edocsil wrote:Also, one quick note. I would suggest not directly comparing WCs. While it isn't strictly against the rules (I really hate to modkill) I will say that it would be a really bad idea to META it too much.

so putting value at my own role's phrasing has been a bad idea all game long. Vital parts such as whether or not there are "subverts" in this game seem more important since a dead human didn't have it in his PM and a claimed angel does (as did, which I explained yet again earlier, a dead angel).

This is the fastest I can put up a defence right now, as I don't really follow why you bring up the points you do. You seem to be under the impression that I haven't read my own role PM either. I explained best I could with the time I have now why I did, so if you're still unsatisfied I can post again tomorrow.

It's too bad that Chap won''t be able to help us out today. I was really counting on his information, so I'm quite disappointed.

I really do think its in our best interest to focus on someone who was on Day 2's bandwagon. So applying most of our pressure to vodean and aage is smart. I will also like to note that I am suspicious of Lovo (nag's replacement). Imo, Nag was flying under the radar in a scum like way early on in the game.

I have thought that vodean was scum since Day 2. I really think his claim is a fake-claim. Yesterday (Day 3) I received some flak for voting Vodean as scum over Jak. However, I still standby that I made the right decision in doing so. Some of you may hopefully better understand that now.

I also want to say that less people participated in the discussion on Day 3 than on Day 2. I think this is largely due to Chapcrap's role. I'm sure many mafia members tried to stay clear from voting yesterday. Which is why I am disappointed that Chap wasn't around, because he could've perhaps cleared vodean or affirmed his guilt even more.

I've been trying to search the threads for a final vote count, and I'm quite disappointed that there is none. I'd hate to have to go through all the D3 threads and have to piece one together myself. But I think its necessary to do with our without Chap's information. I am certain that less scum would be on Day 3's bandwagon. I also want to see if aage voted on Day 3 or not.

Bruceswar: I have big news coming out soonishViolet: oh, what big news?Bruceswar: I am leaving KORT to go to RA

If either Aage or strike are scum, then I cant tell who.. both have made strong points. Vode already claimed 3rd party so.. no use in lynching possible town, and since im not convinced on any scum, VOTE VODE

at this point, unless someone presents an actual case on me (not the "ooh, look, vodean is being scummy" bullshit that always gets me lynched (granted, its true but it doesnt mean im scum), or presents some other info, this day is going to stagnate and end in a vodean lynch. i dont see either one as beneficial to town,so someone please do something. present some info. present a real case on me that i could defend myself against. being vodean is indefensible.

I am hoping we will hear from chap and would like to make sure that we plan accordingly. I am saying that if we all just flood our votes on vod, then it will be difficult to discern any info out of chaps ability should he return. I am a little suspicious that neither of you would want to follow chaps plan. I am fine with voting for vod, just want to make sure the votes on the lynched optimize chaps (and thereby, our) knowledge.

vodean wrote:JG. look. we fucked up. lets try to move on without getting all defensive.town, scum wouldnt out two of themselves to get one townie, would they? no. thats a ridiculous trade. especially to kill a vote stealer, and especially early on. so dont be so defensive, you are only making yourself worse. you are town, and i am not anti-town, so act like it. dont paint yourself as scummy (i know, strange coming from me). there is a better way to convince town that we are on their side than to point fingers all over the place. lets hear some results from last night, and then make a logical decision rather than an emotional one.

Fishing for night actions.

And then of course this one:

vodean wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:

DRoZ wrote:No one visited my target, but I would not feel comfortable naming who I watched.

At this point dont say who you watched.

why? because he might get counter-claimed?

So fishing for night actions twice in the same day. Here's the reason why you feel like you continually get picked on every game vodean. Once we get past the Day 1 stuff, you depend on night actions like a crutch. You expect that we're always going to get night actions that lead us directly to scum every night. Night actions are nice, but we cannot rely on them to lead us to scum every day. Some good, old-fashioned scumhunting is usually necessary. Night actions are a powerful tool, but if wasted by premature claiming, serve very little to us except to paint a bullseye on the people claiming them.

Instead of actually trying to scumhunt, you have taken this victim mentality and attempt to characterize every single case on you as picking on you. Well maybe it's time to realize that your style of play is very short on substantive evidence and very long on speculation.

vodean wrote:JG. look. we fucked up. lets try to move on without getting all defensive.town, scum wouldnt out two of themselves to get one townie, would they? no. thats a ridiculous trade. especially to kill a vote stealer, and especially early on. so dont be so defensive, you are only making yourself worse. you are town, and i am not anti-town, so act like it. dont paint yourself as scummy (i know, strange coming from me). there is a better way to convince town that we are on their side than to point fingers all over the place. lets hear some results from last night, and then make a logical decision rather than an emotional one.

Fishing for night actions. nope. waiting for chap's action and also hoping that maybe someone else got a guilty result or other valuable info that they would like to share. i guess it is technically action-fishing, but it is not pressuring someone into revealing what they did, just asking if anyone has any valuable intel.

And then of course this one:

vodean wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:

DRoZ wrote:No one visited my target, but I would not feel comfortable naming who I watched.

At this point dont say who you watched.

why? because he might get counter-claimed?

well he is fully role-claimed, and even revealed that he gained no info, so he wouldnt be exposing anyone by revealing the information, and so i dont see any reason to hide the information, unless he is hiding something, or believes that his action was messed with (hiding something) for whatever reason. it wont hurt town to know that no one visited someone.So fishing for night actions twice in the same day. Here's the reason why you feel like you continually get picked on every game vodean. Once we get past the Day 1 stuff, you depend on night actions like a crutch. You expect that we're always going to get night actions that lead us directly to scum every night. Night actions are nice, but we cannot rely on them to lead us to scum every day. Some good, old-fashioned scumhunting is usually necessary. Night actions are a powerful tool, but if wasted by premature claiming, serve very little to us except to paint a bullseye on the people claiming them.

Instead of actually trying to scumhunt, you have taken this victim mentality and attempt to characterize every single case on you as picking on youi never say anyone is picking on me. in fact, i never even blame anyone else for getting lynched. i actually enjoy being under pressure and open. the games in which i am less scummy at times, it is either because i am hiding something or because there is a point i wish to make. the thing that makes me so scummy is that i dont really hide my feelings about cases, like the rest of you. i am open and honest, and you are not used to it. yes, i often give scum-tells because of it, but thats just because i tell what i mean, and not what will make you think i am town. being under the gun allows you to get great insight into what is happening when.. Well maybe it's time to realize that your style of play is very short on substantive evidence and very long on speculation. since substantive evidence is night actions, and most cases are just speculation, then in your eyes i am doing great.

DRoZ wrote:I am hoping we will hear from chap and would like to make sure that we plan accordingly. I am saying that if we all just flood our votes on vod, then it will be difficult to discern any info out of chaps ability should he return. I am a little suspicious that neither of you would want to follow chaps plan. I am fine with voting for vod, just want to make sure the votes on the lynched optimize chaps (and thereby, our) knowledge.

In a normal situation you would be correct; however, the mod already told us to not wait for Chap. I take it that Chap is inactive and didn't submit his night action. This is pure speculation right now, but I believe I have good reason for thinking this. Remember back on Night 2, Chap requested that Edoc post a final vote count (which hadn't been done prior to the lynch). Edoc complied because they both needed this information.

Chap was not present during the end of Day 3, nor was a final vote count posted. If Chap was active, he would've requested that Edoc post a final vote count, just like he had on Day 2.

Unfortunately, we aren't going to get any info from Chap today (Day 4). We'll have to move on.

Bruceswar: I have big news coming out soonishViolet: oh, what big news?Bruceswar: I am leaving KORT to go to RA